Monday, January 28, 2013

Will
legal same-sex marriage result in religious persecution?

Bryana
Johnson

DALLAS, January 25, 2013 — Earlier this month, 1,067 UK
priests, bishops and abbots created a significant stir when they signed what is
being called one of the largest open
letters ever produced
in British political history.

The letter was issued as a warning
against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Such a development may spark
religious persecution against Catholics, who oppose same-sex marriage based on
the tenets of their faith, cautioned the multitude of priests.

The letter comes as British Prime
Minister David Cameron has announced his intentions to push through a bill
legalizing same-sex marriage in the UK by the end of the month.

“The natural complementarity
between a man and a woman leads to marriage, seen as a lifelong partnership,” the clergymen declared in their statement. “This
loving union – because of their physical complementarity – is open to bringing
forth and nurturing children. This is what marriage is. That is why marriage is
only possible between a man and a woman.”

“Legislation for same-sex
marriage, should it be enacted, will have many legal consequences, severely
restricting the ability of Catholics to teach the truth about marriage in their
schools, charitable institutions or places of worship,” they went on to warn. Those who signed the
letter make up about one-fourth of all the Catholic clergy in Britain.

Regardless of where we stand on the
issue of same-sex marriage, it’s important for us to determine whether or not
this statement is backed by evidence and by the collective experience of states
and nations that have already enshrined homosexual marriage in law. Surely the
rights and religious liberties of the proponents of traditional marriage must
be protected even as same-sex partnerships become more widespread and more
widely accepted.

Is truth on the side of the UK clergy
and should Christian people be taking a warning from their words? Is
legalization of same-sex marriage a doorway into an era of universal goodwill
and harmony? Or is it merely a sign that a new form of bigotry is at hand – a
bigotry of hatred and violence unleashed against the traditional family and its
supporters?

The obvious question is, have
opponents of same-sex marriage suffered persecution and loss of religious
liberty in other countries that have embraced this radical redefinition of
marriage? The answer is in no way elusive. Let’s take a look at a little very
recent history.

“Tolerance”
in Brazil

Last week, members of the Catholic
Plinio Correa de Olivera Institute gathered in the Brazilian city of Curitiba to protest
abortion and the homosexual ideology and stand in support of the traditional
family. Homosexuality has been legal in Brazil since 1830 and enjoys widespread
acceptance in that
country.

However, the Catholic demonstrators,
who marched peacefully and carried signs, were not greeted with tolerance and acceptance.
In fact, an angry mob soon gathered around them and began yelling threats and
making obscene gestures. The Catholics were spat upon and one of them had an
object thrown at his head which drew blood. As he held up his bloodied hand to
show the camera, the crowd cheered. These incidents were caught on camera by the Institute and by an onlooker sympathetic to the unruly mob.

In 2007, the Brazilian Association
of Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, and Transgender People (ABGLT) filed several
lawsuits against
opponents of the homosexual movement in Brazil. One of these suits targeted the
websites that had just exposed homosexual activist Luiz Mott for his promotion
of pedophilia and pederasty.

Another motion was filed against
psychologist and therapist Rozangela Alves Justino, who provided counseling and
therapy for homosexuals who wished to change their sexual orientation. Because
Brazil’s Federal Council of Psychologists prohibited psychologists from
performing reparative therapy for homosexuality, the ABGLT asked that Alves
Justino’s license be revoked.

Several years ago, Christian
pro-life writer Julio Severo fled Brazil after charges were reportedly filed against him for his
“homophobic” coverage of Brazil’s 2006 Gay Pride parade. Severo left the
country abruptly with his pregnant wife and two small children. At the time,
there was still no official law in Brazil criminalizing “homophobic” behavior.

In February of 2009, LifeSiteNews reported that, “the Brazilian government has
determined that 99% of its citizens are ‘homophobic,’ and therefore must be
reeducated.” According to Brazilian newspaper O Globo, the
federal government of Brazil intended to use the data from the study to “plan
new policies.” Those new policies were implemented in May 2012, when the senate
in Brazil passed a law criminalizing ‘homophobia.’

In the summer of 2012, Julio Severo interviewed Brazilian Christian psychologist Marisa Lobo,
who said that the Brazilian Federal Council of Psychology pressured
and terrorized homosexuals who were looking for help in overcoming their unwanted
same-sex attractions. Marisa was also attacked by the Council when she
questioned the “gay kit” that the Brazilian government attempted to distribute
to students in public schools for the purpose of fighting “homophobia.” Due to
explicit content in the kit and its favorable portrayal of homosexual behavior,
the program was eventually suspended by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff.

“When they learned that [I was]
a Christian, they began to persecute me,” Marisa explained, “as a psychologist who categorizes herself as a
Christian, and later in the process as a homophobe, because I said on Twitter
that I love gays, but I prefer for my child to be heterosexual. And I still
don’t understand why having an opinion instigates violence.”

It seems that the range of tolerated
activity in Brazil is fairly narrow, despite decades of campaigns by same-sex
marriage advocates against “hate” and “bullying” and “harassment.” And it is
becoming increasingly evident that Christian family virtues are not included in
the group of “tolerable” ideas.

“Diversity”
and “Freedom of Speech” in Canada

Canada Day in Ontario last year was marked by a disturbing incident when Rev. David Lynn
and a small group of friends attended the Toronto Gay Pride Parade. Setting up
a small stand on a street corner with a microphone and a video camera, Lynn
preached, held conversations with passers-by, and handed out Bibles and tracts
– that is, until Toronto police wearing LGBT rainbow stickers shut him down and
forced him to vacate the area. Ignoring the profanity and violent behavior of
angry parade attendees and demonstrators who verbally assaulted the group and
even doused Lynn and his cameraman with water, police told Lynn he was
"promoting hate" and must leave. Videos of the incident are available
here and here and here.

It seems only certain forms of free
speech are protected in Canada nowadays. Criticism of homosexuality, even
peaceful and motivated by loving concern, isn’t one of them.

When the Toronto District School
Board revealed their new “anti-homophobia curriculum” in 2011 (Challenging
Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum), many people were understandably disturbed.
Naturally, things only got worse when the news came out that parents would not
be able to opt their kids out of the program – not even their kindergarteners.
Teachers would also not be permitted to decline to teach the course based on
religious convictions.

It seems only certain brands of
diverse thought are encouraged in Canada nowadays. Christian family virtues
aren’t among them.

The curriculum taught students that “you
can’t choose to be gay or straight, but you can choose to come out.” In 3rd
grade, it is recommended that students read the book Gloria Goes to Gay
Pride. Students are encouraged to have their own “Pride Parade” in their
school.

Unfortunately, most real-life Pride
Parades are scarcely suitable for elementary school children.

The disturbing and seemingly
totalitarian approach embraced by the Toronto District is but a foretaste of
what lies ahead, suggests an education minister in the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Truss, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of the Department for
Education, warned in November that school teachers could be
punished for not teaching pro-gay topics, should the British government follow
through with plans to redefine marriage.

More
Instances of Love and Acceptance

The adoption agency Catholic
Charities has been systemically shutting down its branches in various states throughout the
US, following a series of bitter legal disputes over the agency’s right to
refuse to place children with homosexual couples. Similar laws have also forced
church-affiliated agencies in Britain, such as Catholic Care, to separate from their churches or shut down
entirely.

In January 2012, a New Jersey judgeruled against a
Christian retreat house
that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its
premises, ruling that the Constitution allows “some intrusion into
religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.” Last
September, a gay couple
filed suit against two
Illinois institutions that refused to host their civil union. Christian “Bed
and Breakfast”
establishments, which are often family-owned businesses, have been especially
targeted by homosexual rights activists for this type of harassment.

In Ladele and McFarlane v.
United Kingdom, plaintiffs Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane were fired from their places of work for declining to
perform services involving same-sex partnerships and counseling. Ladele, a
marriage registrar for Islington Council in London, “was disciplined after
she asked to be exempt from registering same-sex civil partnerships.”
McFarlane was a counselor who was fired after he “declined to unequivocally
commit to provide same-sex couples with psycho-sexual therapy.” They
appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, but the court refused to hear
their case.

The
Significance for the Future of Religious Liberty

"It seems that a religious
bar to office has been created, whereby a Christian who wishes to act on their
Christian beliefs on marriage will no longer be able to work in a great number
of environments,” commented
Andrea Williams, the Director of the Christian Legal Centre.

Certainly this is a tragic remark
and one that signals a gloomy answer to the question of whether or not the legalization
of same-sex marriage will result in a loss of religious liberty. It is, of
course, unfair of homosexual activists to expect people of faith to cast away
their creeds and their dear, cherished ideals. But these activists make
themselves odious indeed to civilized people when they force dissenters to
violate their codes of morality and their very consciences by endorsing and
promoting a lifestyle they consider abhorrent.

If the aim of legalizing same-sex
marriage is, as we are so often told, to eradicate intolerance and bigotry,
surely its activists should be alarmed to find that their efforts have been
entirely unsuccessful. However, as shocking as it may seem, the advocates of
same-sex marriage are proving repeatedly that they only endorse the toleration
of one view and only believe in the protection of one speech – their own.